Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand: Monitoring local
government planning under the Resource Management Act
Joanne Connell a, *,1, Stephen J. Page a, Tim Bentley b
a
b
Department of Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA, UK
Department of Management and International Business, Massey University, Private Bag 102904, Auckland, New Zealand
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 1 May 2008
Accepted 2 December 2008
In the light of the increasing pace and scale of tourism activity in New Zealand, the concept of sustainable
tourism has become a key ingredient in the nation’s tourism strategy. This paper explores sustainable
tourism planning in New Zealand at the level of local government, and in particular, focuses on the
implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) as a mechanism for achieving sustainable
tourism. Using the findings of a survey of Regional Councils and Territorial Local Authorities, the paper
explores public sector planning responses to tourism impacts and sustainability concerns in New Zealand. The paper extends the earlier work of Page and Thorn (1997. Towards sustainable tourism planning
in New Zealand: public sector planning responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(1): 59-77; 2002.
Towards sustainable tourism development and planning in New Zealand: the public sector response
revisited. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(3): 222-238), which identified major issues of concern at local
council level with regard to tourism impacts and argued the need for a national vision for tourism to
ensure that the RMA achieved its original goals. Since then, a national tourism strategy has been published and changes in legislation have further empowered local authorities to further progress the
sustainability agenda. This paper examines these developments and the ensuing implications,
concluding that significant progress has been made in developing tourism policies at the local level, but
that a number of constraints and issues limit the development of New Zealand as a sustainable
destination.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Sustainable tourism
Tourism monitoring
Local government
Planning
Policy
Legislation
1. Introduction
Despite the problems associated with defining and operationalising the term sustainability, the concept continues to mature within
tourism research and management (Page & Connell, 2008). A
growing acceptance of sustainable development as an approach to
tourism planning (Gunn & Var, 2002; Hall, 2007a; Weaver, 2006) has
sparked academic interest in the implications for destinations and
the way in which the impacts arising from tourism activities and
developments are recognised, managed and mitigated. Alongside
this, the consequence of international agreements on sustainable
development, notably Agenda 21 and the obligations on local
governments to embrace sustainable development within activities,
policies and plans, is a general recognition that sustainability is now
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1786 466451.
E-mail addresses: j.j.connell@stir.ac.uk (J. Connell), s.j.page@stir.ac.uk (S.J. Page),
T.Bentley@massey.ac.nz (T. Bentley).
1
Tel.: þ44 1786 466452.
0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.001
a direct consideration of the planning system. At both theoretical
and strategic levels, the concept of sustainable development is now
widely accepted as the basis for planning and managing current and
future human activity (see Redclift, 2005). However, debates on the
application of sustainability have stimulated a concern about the
effectiveness of the integration of sustainable principles and practices within planning policies and processes, including tourism
(Hall, 2007a). This is coupled with the more well-established issue of
the lack of importance given to tourism as a core element in the
planning process, despite its economic significance in many areas
(Dredge & Moore, 1992). Accordingly, the success of sustainable
tourism planning depends on existing planning and management
functions that guide appropriate developments and the ability to
respond to pressure on infrastructure and environments that
increasing tourism demand creates (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Hall &
Page, 2006).
As Inskeep (1991) argues, the special relationship between
tourism and the environment, based on a unique dependency on
natural and cultural resources, requires a balanced approach to
tourism planning and development to maximise the associated
868
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
benefits and minimise the negative impacts (Dredge & Jenkins,
2007). If ill-planned or excessive development is permitted,
tourism can damage the special qualities that are essential for
sustainable development. Conversely, it is recognised that tourism
can help to promote and support conservation, regeneration and
economic development as well as enhance the quality of life of
visitors and host communities (Holden, 2008; Wall & Mathieson,
2006). The importance of tourism within a sustainable development context is now acknowledged globally and, while not
specifically mentioned in the original Rio Summit in 1992, was
addressed as a specific topic in a review of Agenda 21 in 1997. In
2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development included
a submission on sustainable tourism (Chapter IV, paragraph 43) in
the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, which identified that
while tourism has positive effects, uncontrolled tourism growth
can undermine the basis of tourism. Such a situation is clearly
a concern for the industry in New Zealand, where the most recent
national tourism strategy (NZTS, 2015) (Ministry of Tourism, 2007)
outlines the necessity of taking a prudent approach to future
development and developing appropriate management responses
to tourism-related pressures on the environment.
One of the overriding concerns about tourism in New Zealand is
that the tourism product relies heavily on the natural and physical
environment and the focus of marketing rests on the image of
a ‘clean and green’ country (highlighted by Tourism New Zealand’s
100% Pure marketing campaign). With the significant growth in
tourism demand and the associated pressure of increased volumes
of international and domestic tourists, conserving environmental
resources has become problematic in some regions. Further, in New
Zealand the need to understand the impacts of tourism has become
important within a planning context because of the statutory
requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991, which takes
into account the environmental effects of activities, including
tourism developments, within the planning system. While the
primary intention of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to
advance sustainable management of natural and physical resources,
some criticisms have been lobbied towards the implementation of
the Act with suggestions that other mechanisms are required to
move towards the goal of sustainable development (Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment, 1998). In the case of tourism,
Page and Thorn (1997) suggested that a national policy or strategy
was required in addition to the RMA, if sustainable tourism goals in
New Zealand were to be achieved. Since then, a national strategy has
been produced, reviewed and subsequently updated, emphasising
the sustainable development concept and the desirability of integrating environmental, economic, social and cultural considerations
in the long-term management of tourism resources. However, the
extent to which sustainable development ideology is translated into
policy and practice requires investigation to uncover whether the
new tourism strategy has improved this process, particularly given,
as Dredge and Jenkins (2007:285-6) argue, that ‘‘governments have
become extremely canny in reproducing the sustainable development
rhetoric without actually effecting fundamental policy shifts.’’.
Accordingly, this paper explores the issues associated with
incorporating sustainability in a planning context focusing on the
example of tourism in the New Zealand planning framework. The
study extends the work of Page and Thorn (1997, 2002) and reexamines the issues that arose from the two previous surveys
(conducted in 1995 and 2001, respectively, by Page and Thorn) of
local authority planning departments concerning the integration of
sustainability in tourism planning. In particular, this paper focuses
on the impact of the innovative sustainability legislation embodied
in the RMA, which engenders a planning approach that identifies
and mitigates the impacts of new developments. As it is more than
a decade since Page and Thorn’s first study, and several years since
the subsequent work was conducted, it seems timely to revisit this
subject to chart progress in the development of sustainable tourism
planning in New Zealand. A follow-up study is particularly important given the conclusions of the 2001 study, which outlined
a number of problems and challenges for sustainable tourism
planning within the existing tourism planning framework at the
time (Page & Thorn, 2002). In particular, the lack of a central guiding
vision for tourism at a national level was seen as problematic given
the huge increases in international arrivals since the 1990s and the
prevailing political philosophy of growth and development in
the absence of a strategy to tackle the impacts of tourism. Since the
political restructuring of the 1980s, a promotion-driven, market-led,
macro approach to tourism at the national level has created significant repercussions at micro levels where the impacts have been
experienced (Memon, Shone, & Simmons, 2005). A lack of central
planning advice or a national tourism policy means that responsibility for planning for tourism developments and managing tourism
impacts rests with local authorities. One of the biggest challenges
identified by Page and Thorn (2002) was the geographical spread of
tourists, where overcrowding and overdevelopment in key iconic
destinations was a significant feature of tourism activity. Consequently, the benefits of tourism were focused in a few places rather
than being spread more widely across a larger number of destinations. As Page and Thorn (2002) argued, a national tourism plan was
needed to achieve more balanced, equitable and beneficial patterns
of tourism activity and development for destinations and host
communities. Accordingly, a third investigation to assess the progress made in tourism planning is opportune given the development
of a national tourism strategy by the New Zealand Ministry of
Tourism since 2001, changes in planning law and subsequent
measures by local government to engage further in tourism. Since
Page and Thorn’s two earlier studies, growth in international arrivals
to New Zealand has been strong, making the need for sustainable
tourism planning ever more important and to ensure that sustainable policies are not simply just rhetoric. Coupled with the changing
policy background is the growing appreciation of the economic
value of New Zealand’s environmental image for tourism through
‘Brand New Zealand’, which is worth billions of dollars a year
(Ministry for the Environment, 2001). Business interests, for
example Air New Zealand, are becoming increasingly concerned that
the environmental resource base, and the image on which it is based,
needs to be maintained for the country’s competitive advantage
(New Zealand Herald, 2008). However, as a PCE report on education
for sustainable development (PCE, 2004) highlights, just because
people value something does not mean that they will take good care
of it. Such issues have major implications for the future of tourism in
New Zealand.
The paper commences with a brief examination of tourism in
New Zealand and the reasons why tourism has become a consideration of the planning system. Subsequently, the tourism planning
context in New Zealand is briefly examined, including developments in legislation and policy that have emerged since Page and
Thorn’s last study in 2001 (Page & Thorn, 2002). Following this, the
methodology and findings of an empirical research study are presented, which aim to provide evidence of the state of sustainable
tourism planning in New Zealand in 2007.
2. Sustainability, tourism and the Resource Management Act
Tourism continues to be one of New Zealand’s most significant
and fastest growing economic sectors with 2.41 million international arrivals in 2006, accounting for 19.2% of total export earnings
and providing employment for 9.9% of the workforce (Statistics
New Zealand, 2006). Between 1993 and 2007, the volume of
international visitor arrivals doubled, with tourism becoming the
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
country’s top export earner. Forecasts indicate further growth in
international arrivals of 4% per annum, reaching 3.17 million by
2013, with domestic tourism increasing by about 0.8% annually
from 52 million to 55 million trips (New Zealand Tourism Forecasts
2007–2013) (Statistics New Zealand, 2006). While New Zealand is
by no means a major global tourism destination in terms of volume,
the rapid growth in visitor numbers to a small country with
sensitive natural and cultural resources and a population of just
over 4.2 million (Statistics New Zealand, 2008a) raises significant
challenges for the sustainable development of the sector.
By global standards, New Zealand is perceived to be relatively
clean and green but the emergence of environmental problems that
have the potential to undermine the value of New Zealand’s environmental image has been recognised in several government
reports over the past decade. Most recently, the Ministry for the
Environment’s (MfE) State of the Environment Report 2007 identifies
the development of serious pressures including population pressures, land and marine use intensification, air pollution, increasing
household consumption, transport and traffic, energy use, waste,
toxicity and primary production pressures. Some of these issues,
including the cumulative impact of developmental pressures, lie
outside the remit of the RMA in its current capacity. The OECD
(2007) in its review of environmental performance of the country
states that New Zealand faces several challenges in integrating
environmental concerns into economic activities, while the MfE
indicates that New Zealand is reaching a critical tipping point on
many aspects of its environment (MfE, 2008). Tourism has been
viewed, in some cases, as a way of halting damage by providing an
alternative source of income to primary production (e.g. industrialscale forestry and agriculture), although tourism activity and
development creates its own set of problems.
Indeed, concerns about the environmental effects of tourism
have been widely reported (see Cessford & Dingwall, 1999;
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 1997; Paterson
& McDonald, 2004; Ward & Beanland, 1995). The Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) report identified a range
of tourism impacts, some of which it felt ‘‘have the potential to
seriously damage both the environment and the industry’’,
including air pollution, water pollution, soil and geological aspects,
wildlife disruption, loss of habitat, vegetation damage, crowding,
noise, amenity effects, climate change and energy use. Subsequent
tourism research has focused on several of these issues as
they affect New Zealand, such as tourism effects on wildlife
(Constantine, 1999; Lusseau & Higham, 2004; McClung, Seddon,
Massaro, & Setiawan, 2004; Richter, Dawson, & Slooten, 2003),
mountain areas (Booth & Cullen, 2001; Milne, Bremner, & Delpero,
2006) and other specific environments (Stephenson, 1999; Ward,
Hughey, & Urlich, 2002; Wray, Harbrow, & Kazmierow, 2005),
tourist energy consumption (Becken & Simmons, 2002), carbon
emissions (Becken & Patterson, 2006) and biosecurity (see Hall,
2007b). The (PCE, 1997) identified three principle negative environmental effects resulting from tourism development and activity
including:
loss of quality of some relatively unspoilt parts of New Zealand’s natural environment;
loss of amenity values from incremental development, which
can also affect communities and lifestyles, especially in places
where the proportion of visitors to residents is high;
pressure on infrastructure resulting in significant costs to local
communities.
While, as Wall and Mathieson (2006) indicate, not all changes
can be attributed to tourism, the pace and scale of development in
New Zealand suggests that some change in the natural
869
environment is an inevitable result of tourism. The PCE report,
while now somewhat dated yet still sadly relevant, recognised
strategic issues that detract from progress towards sustainable
tourism, notably the fragmentation of the government system for
managing tourism and its environmental effects. These concerns
were raised some six years after the introduction of the Resource
Management Act (1991), the pioneering legislation which seeks to
incorporate sustainable principles within planning law in New
Zealand.
The sole purpose of the RMA is the ‘‘promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources’’ (RMA, 1991
Section 5), and establishes a comprehensive framework for landuse planning and resource management delivered at regional and
local levels. The Act defines ‘Matters of National Importance’, which
must be recognised and provided for with regard to managing the
use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources
(Table 1).
Other issues which are of significance to the Act include: Kaitiakitanga (stewardship); efficient use and development of natural
and physical resources; energy efficiency; maintenance and
enhancement of environmental quality and amenity values; the
intrinsic values of ecosystems; the finite characteristics of natural
and physical resources; protection of trout and salmon habitat; the
effects of climate change; and the benefits of renewable energy.
As the primary planning law, the RMA sets out responsibilities
for central, regional and local government, although application of
the legislation is delegated mainly to regional and local government. Regional Councils set out strategic issues that affect natural
and physical resources and produce a guiding framework for policies within their respective regions. However, it is Territorial Local
Authorities (TLAs) that take the prime responsibility for planning at
the local level, and for tourism developers the local council is
usually the first point of contact with the planning system. A
significant feature of the RMA is that it seeks to address the effects
of an activity or development, rather than the management of
actual activities. Resource Consents are required for activities not
permitted as a right within Local Plans. The consent process enables
planners to assess the effects of an activity on the environment,
particularly in terms of air, soil, water, land and other natural,
physical and cultural resources and to put measures in place that
eliminate or mitigate potentially damaging effects of developments. As a requirement of the RMA, councils must prepare
a District Plan that identifies development zones in a locale. Such
a plan does not encourage development per se but is used as an
objective tool to guide developers in submitting appropriate
applications in line with local precedents and objectives. Despite
Table 1
Matters of National Importance as defined by Section 2 of the Resource Management
Act 1991.
Preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the
coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and their
protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development
Protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate
subdivision, use, and development
Protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of
indigenous fauna
Maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine
area, lakes, and rivers
Relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga
Protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development
Protection of recognised customary activities
Adapted from Resource Management Act 1991 No 69, Section 2 (as at 09 August
2008), New Zealand Legislation, New Zealand Government.
870
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
the environmental resource focus of the RMA, Section 1 of the Act
defines ‘environment’ in a broad way to include: ecosystems and
their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural
and physical resources; amenity values; and the social, economic,
aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect or which are affected
by the abovementioned. Therefore, while the Act does not explicitly
seek to achieve social or economic outcomes, decisions are to take
into account the impact of the use of natural and physical resources
on social, cultural and economic matters. In some cases, social,
cultural and/or economic benefits can outweigh ecological effects.
While the consents process focuses on individual developments,
wider effect on destination are considered, for example, tourism
values, landscape, historic sites and degradation of water bodies.
It is important to note that, in common with other economic
sectors, there is no specific reference to tourism within the RMA
legislation primarily because the effects-based system does not
recognise specific activities. Of concern is the apparent consequence that some councils have interpreted this as meaning that
tourism is not an activity that requires attention in relation to the
identification of impacts and delineation of associated policy and
management responses. Despite this, as Page and Thorn (1997)
argue, there is no doubt that tourism developments, like other
forms of development that require consideration under the planning system, remain an intrinsic part of RMA development planning processes, as acknowledged by Local Government New
Zealand in the production of a good practice guide for the application of the RMA in tourism planning (LGNZ, 2004).
Accordingly, a range of responsibilities exist in relation to
sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand for local government
in relation to the execution of the RMA. At this point, it is worth
noting that local government plays a significant role in tourism
within New Zealand. While Regional Councils can fund and
promote tourism at a regional level, TLAs have the most heavy and
direct involvement in tourism through funding, operating tourism
activities and attractions (e.g. museums and art galleries, parks,
gardens, reserves and trails), organising events and organising
promotions. In addition, TLAs provide the primary sources of funds
for Regional Tourism Organisations, while of course TLAs create and
maintain essential local infrastructure from which tourism activity
benefits. However, one of the most important functions of councils
is the implementation of national planning legislation and policy at
the local level. While local authorities are charged under the RMA
with developing a plan to set policy and guide development in their
area of governance, there is no such statutory requirement to
develop tourism plans. While tourism-related developments are
considered within the remit of regional and local plans, often there
is no guiding policy framework for tourism within a specific area,
which is problematic for sustainable tourism development.
Further, while there is an increasing trend for councils and
regional tourism organisations to develop tourism strategies, it
appears that most of these plans adopt a more traditional marketing
perspective with a view to promoting tourism in a region rather than
creating clear links to the RMA by recognising tourism impacts and
the benefits of planning to control negative effects and maximise
positive ones. This is understandable given the economic development remit of local councils, yet a quality environment is at the heart
of the New Zealand tourism product. Page and Hall (1999) argued
that local authorities might not be well equipped to assess the effects
of tourism, primarily because resourcing issues dictate that tourism
monitoring is not a major area of focus for a body charged with
delivering services to local people, often under severe budgetary
constraints. However, because the implementation of sustainable
tourism planning is within the hands of local councils, the effective
translation of principles into policy and action is essential to progress the sustainability agenda.
3. Developments in tourism and sustainability in New
Zealand since 2001
Since Page and Thorn’s (2002) last study, which argued the need
for a national tourism strategy in New Zealand, two notable
developments have occurred. First, in 2001 the Ministry of Tourism
published the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010 (NZTS, 2010),
which was updated in 2007 to take into consideration the changing
global and national trends in tourism issues and travel patterns:
New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015. The NZTS 2015 is underpinned
by two key principles kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and manaakitanga (responsibility), creating a uniquely New Zealand approach to
sustainable tourism. The strategy recognises that the tourism sector
must take a leading role in protecting and enhancing the environment by contributing to a whole-of-New Zealand approach to
ensure that New Zealand’s environment will continue to be
enjoyed by future generations, linking with other strategies and
initiatives to develop a coordinated and integrated approach to
sustainability. The strategy is a substantive document but in terms
of directly relating to local government planning, it is recognised
that the tourism sector and communities should work together for
maximum and mutual benefit, while local authorities should
understand the benefits tourism offers and lead destination
management and planning initiatives and processes to maximise
these benefits. In addition, the strategy emphasizes that tourism
decision-making by local government, communities, iwi and the
tourism sector should be informed by high-quality research.
Second, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has increased
its tourism work by actively encouraging local government participation in tourism projects. In 2003, LGNZ issued its response to
NZTS 2010, entitled ‘Postcards from Home’ which contained
specific actions designed to engage local government with tourism
issues. One of the four strategic aims of ‘Postcards from Home’ was
‘to engage communities in planning for tourism which is socially,
economically, environmentally and culturally sustainable’ (LGNZ,
2003: 6). As part of this aim, it was recognised that there was a need
to raise awareness among elected officials and council staff about
local government involvement in tourism. It was also recognised
that the RMA planning framework required supplementing
through research and non-statutory tourism strategies to address
tourism growth and impacts, where encouraging the preparation of
tourism strategies was stated as a key action.
In addition to strategic policy developments in tourism, at
a wider planning level across all sectors the amendments to the
Local Government Act 1974 in 2002 increased the flexibility of local
government in decision-making and empowering local community
in democratic processes, and gave more power to Regional Councils
to pursue sustainable development objectives. The purpose of the
Act is to: ‘‘. provide for democratic and effective local government
that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities; and to that
end, this Act. provides for local authorities to play a broad role in
promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of their communities, taking a sustainable development
approach’’ (Local Government Act, 2002 Section 3). The Bill highlighted the need to prepare Long-Term Council Community Plans
(LTCCP), in addition to existing District Plans, which outline strategic priorities for the community, and sometimes include tourism
promotion and development as part of an economic development
scenario. LTCCPs focus on the long-term management and development of specific areas based on council assets, budget forecasts,
policies and community consultations on desirable outcomes as
a basis for understanding priorities within the area and aligning
council services to match these outcomes. LTCCPs are prepared by
both TLAs and Regional Councils and cover a ten-year period, with
reviews every three years. In the years between reviews, an Annual
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
Plan is devised which sets out budgets and targets for the year
ahead.
It is also worth noting that the RMA is subject to ongoing review
and amendment. Since 2001, several changes have been embedded
into the legislation, including improvements to the Resource
Consents Application process (in 2005) and inclusion of matters of
international concern such as climate change, renewable energy
and energy use (in 2004).
As such, there have been some significant changes at strategic
and policy levels in New Zealand, all of which have the potential to
influence the sustainable tourism planning agenda. However, the
extent to which these changes have infiltrated into local government is an area that requires further investigation. The following
section outlines the methodology used to survey local councils to
ascertain responses to tourism planning issues at the local level.
4. Methodology
In November 2007, a self-complete questionnaire survey was
mailed to all 85 local authorities in New Zealand. A pre-paid
envelope was included for ease of return. The questionnaire was
based on the earlier ones utilised by Page and Thorn (1997, 2002) to
enable some tracking of changes in findings over time, although
some questions required alteration to reflect policy developments
and to gauge responses to the launch of the New Zealand Tourism
Strategy, which did not exist during the previous survey periods. In
addition, questions from the 1995 survey requiring substantive
data requests from respondents were omitted where possible to
encourage survey completion and to confine the aims of the survey
to specific tourism planning objectives (such as identification of
tourism impacts and development of tourism strategies) without
eroding the aims of the investigation. The survey design incorporated a combination of closed and open questions. Closed questions
were utilised to gauge responses to straightforward questions,
where a simple tick box suffices to assist in categorisation of
respondents. However, recognising the small population involved
in this survey, a range of open questions were included to generate
a source of more qualitative, explanatory information that can add
a richer dimension to understanding responses.
The population comprised 12 Regional Councils (RCs) and 73
Territorial Local Authorities (5 of which are Unitary Authorities
with powers at Regional and District levels). Territorial Local
Authorities (TLAs) consist of 58 District Councils and 15 City
Councils. The survey was distributed to all three types of local
authorities to ensure that the responses of all bodies with a regional
and local remit and a role in the RMA implementation were represented. Surveys were mailed directly to Planning Officers, who
oversee RMA processes and understand how tourism fits into local
planning, for completion. Following a reminder, some 43
completed and usable questionnaires were returned, giving
a response rate of 51%. The aim of the survey was not to produce
large amounts of statistical analysis, rather to generate a picture of
current levels of tourism planning at council level which by its very
nature can only be descriptive in exploring the issues bearing in
mind the small population size. Given that this figure represents
half of all local authorities, the information that the survey yielded
is considered to be valid in providing a general picture of public
sector responses to tourism planning in New Zealand, although
non-responses deserve further consideration.
The patterns of response provide a useful geographic spread of
data, and represent a good mix of areas in both urban and rural
areas, areas with high and low tourism profiles, and North and
South Islands. The response rate of Regional Councils was the
lowest at 25%, explained primarily by the apparently delegated role
of tourism to the local level by some Regional Councils, and whose
871
main concerns relating to tourism are integrated resource
management issues, particularly water and waste management. For
both District and City Councils, the response rates were over one
half of the population (55% and 53%, respectively). The response
rate in this survey was lower than that of Page and Thorn (2002)
which achieved 57%. Analysis of the response rates indicates that
the response from TLAs is very similar, but in this survey the
response from Regional Councils is much lower. It is possible that
Regional Councils felt that the tourism focus of the survey was not
relevant to their functions. If one isolates TLAs, the response rate of
55% is the same as achieved by Page and Thorn (2002), as shown in
Table 2.
Methodologically, this study suffers from the same problem as
most postal surveys, and while the overall response rate is satisfactory (often a 30% response rate is deemed reasonable for such
surveys), it is difficult to assure the representativeness of the
responses achieved. In terms of commenting on the non-respondents, the councils were spread throughout the country, some are
in significant tourist areas while others are not on primary or
secondary tourist routes. City Councils representing the three
international gateways responded. The non-respondents included
7 City Councils (out of 15) and 26 District Councils (out of 58); while
for Regional Councils the figure was 9 (out of 12). Some 28
responses were received from councils on the North Island (49%
response), while 15 responses were received from the South Island
(54% response). Overall, the responses received provide a satisfactory sample in relation to tourism areas, population size and
geography, all of which will be further elaborated in the findings.
Longitudinal comparisons are only possible at the general level,
given that although the same population was sampled, not all
respondents answered each of the three surveys. Finally, it should
be noted that the names of specific councils are not given in the
discussion of findings from the survey to respect the confidentiality
of the research process which was assured in the research process
in order to generate frank and accurate responses.
5. Analysis of findings
The findings of the survey are reported using a combination of
quantitative data where appropriate given the small population,
with verbatim responses to open questions to enrich the data and
provide further insights. As a first step, it is valuable to recognise
the scale and type of communities, areas and tourism profiles
represented in these findings, particularly as such variables are
useful in cross tabulating findings. The resident population of the
survey areas varied from 609 to 404,658 in District Council areas,
while Regional Councils contain the largest populations, being
made up of a number of District Council areas. Similarly, Regional
Councils varied in size from less than 40,000 to over 500,000
residents.
In terms of tourism volumes, it is problematic to represent the
volumes of tourism in each area with any accuracy, given availability and reliability of tourism data at District Council level for
Table 2
Response rates compared with previous surveys of local authorities.
Regional authorities
Territorial local
authorities
1995
2000
2007
1995
2000
2007
Responded
Non-response
Total
% response
rate
9
7
3
40
38
40
3
5
9
29
31
33
12
12
12
69
69
73
75
58
25
58
55
55
872
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
comparisons. While a few councils produce reasonably good data
on visitor numbers, the overall picture is rather patchy. Data on
guest nights and numbers of tourists at Regional Council and
Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) level is available through the
International Visitor Survey (IVS), as is data on guest nights and
numbers through the Domestic Tourism Survey for each RTO area.
Due to inconsistent boundaries, a number of Districts lie within
more than one Regional Council area, and similarly RTO areas do
not always map consistently with Districts. Therefore, neither of
those measures provides an accurate picture of tourism at District
levels. However, an indicative picture of tourism activity at District
Council level can be ascertained through the Commercial Accommodation Monitor (CAM), which measures tourist nights in
commercial accommodation establishments registered for GST and
with an income of $30,000 or more. The accuracy of this survey is
questionable given that a number of accommodation providers
below the $30,000 threshold exist, and certain sectors of accommodation are known to be underestimated, such as backpacking,
camping and caravanning, and hosted accommodation (Statistics
New Zealand, 2008b). Nevertheless, the CAM assists in giving
a broad indication of tourism activity in each area which can be
used for cross tabulation purposes.
5.1. Tourism policies
Local and regional authorities were asked if they had a tourism
policy. While there is no statutory requirement for a tourism policy,
the publication of one indicates a strong community interest (given
the Local Government Act 1974 amendment) and/or local government commitment to tourism, especially given the encouragement
by the ‘Postcards from Home’ policy. The survey revealed that 26
authorities have tourism policies and a further two are in preparation. This compares favourably with the 2001 survey (Table 3).
Compared with the 65% of councils that have a tourism policy, in
the 1995 survey 35% had a policy on tourism while the 2001 survey
revealed a much lower figure of only 40%. The trend from 1995 to
2007 shows a small rise in strategies by 2001, but a significant rise
by 2007. This would appear to indicate that the effect of the
national tourism strategy has been to encourage local government
to develop and adopt strategies. Nevertheless, while this increase in
strategies illustrates an interest in tourism issues, one third of
authorities have not developed any policies. This is not necessarily
an issue as not all local councils have or indeed want to develop
a tourism profile, although this figure does represent a number of
council areas where tourism is a significant activity. Of the five
respondents considered to be on the main international tourist
route, the ‘Blue Ribbon Route’ (see Page & Thorn, 1997), four have
a tourism policy. This differs somewhat from the 2001 study, where
only one respondent had a policy. In the one area where there is no
policy, the respondent stated that all tourism matters are delegated
to the RTO. Further, there are no substantive differences between
areas with large or small numbers of guest nights and whether the
council has a tourism policy, although slightly more areas with
fewer guest nights had developed a policy. Some 44% of areas with
more than a 50,000 resident population did not have a policy, while
Table 3
Comparison of surveys indicating types of organisation and whether tourism policy
had been developed.
2001
2007
Percentage of Regional
Councils with
a tourism policy
Percentage of District
Councils with
a tourism policy
Percentage of City
Councils with
a tourism policy
29
33
42
66
43
75
32% with a population less than 50,000 were without a tourism
policy. Findings suggest that those areas with lower tourism
activity and lower population size might be more likely to have
developed a tourism policy. It is not generally considered that
Regional Councils have a tourism remit, although one RC did have
a tourism policy. Indeed, the lack of response from other Regional
Councils indicates a lack of interest in tourism at this level, where
tourism is delegated to other bodies, including TLAs and RTOs.
Of all the tourism policies that existed, 13 were relatively recent,
having been published since 2006, while only 6 pre-dated the 2001
NZTS. This finding reflects the apparent situation for tourism policies
to be up-to-date, informed by current practice and understanding of
the strategic national tourism context. Most councils had a specified
review date for the policy, with many reviewed annually as part of
the Annual Plan as required under the RMA.
5.2. The influence of the NZTS
The majority of local authority planning officers in councils
where tourism plans already existed had seen the NZTS (83%).
Respondents who already had a tourism policy and had seen the
NZTS were asked to indicate how the NZTS would inform their own
policy development. This was seen as particularly important given
that 15 of the existing policies were due to be reviewed 2008–2012,
and that most of these local authorities thought that there were
emerging tourism issues that needed to be included in a revised
policy. Five respondents indicated that they had or will incorporate(d) elements of the national plan where appropriate to their
particular locality, while a further three stated that they would take
the plan into consideration. Two authorities stated that the NZTS
was informed by their own existing plans, while a further three
stated that their new plan directly aligns with the national strategy.
Others commented on more specific elements of the national plan,
and appreciated the opportunity to determine the national context
and direction of tourism strategy in New Zealand and develop
a common approach to core issues. Overall, though, the ways in
which the NZTS has already influenced, or will influence, policy at
a local level appears to be somewhat vaguely stated in many cases.
5.3. Planning for tourism impacts
Some 57% of respondents stated that specific tourism issues
need to be addressed in the next review of the policy/plan. The
responses are illustrated in Table 4, and in some cases more than
one response was given by respondents. The range of emerging
tourism-related issues that were identified indicate two
approaches to tourism development. These approaches are not
quite polar opposites, but do represent different perspectives on
tourism activity. On one side are those authorities that have
concerns about the impacts of tourism, where key policy issues
relate to balancing the needs of residents, visitors and other
interests, dealing with impacts arising direct from tourism activity,
and managing environmental resources (36% of authorities). A
particular concern indicated by three council representatives is that
of the cost of developing and managing tourism opportunities,
activities and impacts. Two of these indicated impending studies to
ascertain the economic cost of infrastructure and attractions, while
a third noted the difficulties for councils with small populations to
afford infrastructure improvements through the local rates system.
Conversely are those authorities who are more concerned about
developing tourism assets, promotions and infrastructure in an
attempt to generate or meet demand (16%).
A further examination of the councils that identified issues
reveals that councils with higher rates of tourism activity were
more likely to identify issues, as quite obviously where there are
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
Table 4
Tourism issues identified by respondents.
Issue
Number
of responses
Managing adverse environmental effects
Need to develop transport infrastructure
Waste disposal (especially relating
to freedom camping)
Weighing up the economic cost of tourism
Conflicts between visitors,
developers and residents
Product development
Addressing seasonality
Different approaches adopted
by different bodies
Concerns about effects of specific
tourism developments
Desire to maintain low impact tourism
Effect of climate change on travel patterns
Partnership and cultural opportunities
Oversupply of road stopping places
Increasing demand for outdoor
activities and how to meet it
Increasing promotions
Pressure on infrastructure at peak times
7
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
more visitors there are more likely to be impacts that are created
and need to be addressed. Similar to previous studies, those areas
that did not identify tourism issues were primarily provincial city
areas, or rural areas away from main tourist routes.
Some 40% of councils did not consider there to be any tourism
issues of concern. While this finding may be taken at face value, the
response may hide a number of more insidious issues. As Page and
Thorn (1997) highlight, some councils may not possess the tourism
expertise to identify and deal specifically with tourism impacts,
while others may be more focused on championing the marketing
orientation of Tourism New Zealand in generating economic
benefits. In both cases, there are significant dangers that negative
impacts may not be anticipated, mitigated or managed. Worthy of
note though is that in the 2001 study, 38% of respondents identified
tourism issues that needed to be addressed, compared with 57% in
the 2007 study. These findings appear to indicate a growing interest
and concern about the effects of tourism and the need for local
government to address impacts, both positive and negative,
through the planning system. In addition, the range of issues
identified in the 2001 survey was not as extensive as in the current
study, suggesting either a higher level of tourism awareness within
councils or the emergence of a more extensive number of impacts.
5.4. Local authority perception of tourism
The financial contributions that councils make towards tourism
development, promotion and activity can indicate the level of
support they make to tourism in their locality. The findings indicate
the importance of local authority financial contributions to tourism
development, with 34 of the 43 bodies (79%) providing financial
support, ranging from NZ $10,000 in a small rural area to NZ $4.2
million in a major urban centre. The majority of funding is directed
towards Regional Tourism Organisations (approx 72% of funds),
while other major areas of expenditure include event development
and promotion, information and visitor centres, marketing and
promotion, regional initiatives, attraction development, employment of an events or tourism promotion officer, one-off projects
and i-SITEs2. Only eight of the 43 authorities (18%) conducted
2
Official network of visitor information centres in New Zealand.
873
research, two only very occasionally and incurring minor expenditure, while two spent more than NZ$50,000 annually on research.
One respondent commented that the RTO carries out research and
provides the Council with findings, so a research role at council
level was not considered vital. While Tourism New Zealand carries
out and commissions a substantial amount of research, much of
this pertains to the national level, with some at the RTO level.
While four councils (all of which are in the most heavily visited
tourist regions) spend more than $1million on tourism activities,
the median average of $185,420 reflects a more modest level of
expenditure. About three-quarters of total contributions were less
than $400,000, which, even bearing in mind inflation, compares
favourably with $200,000 in the 2001 survey. Of the councils that
did not contribute financially towards tourism, two were located in
areas that receive less than 10,000 guest nights, although, more
curiously, a further two are located in tourist regions. It should be
noted that it is not the role of Regional Councils to contribute
financially to tourism activities.
5.5. Importance of tourism in council areas
Respondents were asked to indicate if the perceived importance
of tourism had changed within their local council during the
preceding five years. Some 28 (50%) respondents stated that the
importance of tourism had increased, 7 (17%) of these stating
increased significantly. The main reason given for this was the
increasing recognition of the realised and potential economic
benefits of tourism within the local area. It appears that many
councils have become more aware of the beneficial effects that
tourism can bring to a locality through expenditure, business
development and employment opportunities. In particular, the
awareness of the ability of events to draw visitors to an area
appears to have strengthened. Other contributing factors included
growth in tourism, improved marketing and strategic vision,
development of new products and services, and more Council
funding.
Only 3 (7%) respondents stated that the importance of tourism
had decreased, partly due to the limited tourism appeal of one
location but in two others a perceived lack of value, for example:
‘‘**** [RTO] have been unable to demonstrate, articulate and quantify
to councillors value for money that has been invested’’. Eleven
respondents (26%) stated that the importance of tourism remained
the same. This was explained by several locations where tourism
activity remained fairly static or where growth was limited by
infrastructure constraints. One issue identified was the absence of
effective tourism organisations and regional co-ordination to take
tourism developments forward and to illustrate the benefits of
tourism to the council, thereby not propelling tourism forward as
a beneficial economic activity. Areas with the lowest number of
guest nights were more likely to recognise the economic benefits
of tourism, but also the limited tourism appeal of the area and lack
of effective leadership.
These findings differ from those in the 2001 study, where 80% of
councils identified increased importance of tourism (29% increased
significantly), 16% remained same, while only one council stated
that it had decreased. This indicates that councils took on board the
importance of tourism during the period 1995–2001, and that there
is a heightened level of awareness of its importance today. Interestingly, the reasons for change or lack of change differ in the 2001
and 2007 survey. Development of new attractions and recognition
of substantial increases in visitors were cited as the main reasons
for an increase in importance in 2002, while recognition of
economic benefits was more important in 2007 survey. This
appears to indicate that councils have a clear understanding of how
tourism can benefit their locality, which may have resulted from
874
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
the key messages in the national tourism plan and associated
reports. However, similar issues with regard to lack of financial
support given to tourism or lack of importance placed on the
activity as mentioned in the 2001 survey are still in evidence and in
fact appear to be more marked in the 2007 survey.
5.6. Tourism development
Tourism-related developments had taken place in all but three
of the local authority areas since 2000. The range and scope of
developments indicate a significant rise in tourism infrastructure
across the country, from airport enhancements to visitor trails. The
most frequently cited form was attraction developments, which
had taken place in 33 council areas (78.6%), followed by accommodation development (non-hotel) in 30 areas (71.4%). Areas that
reported no new tourism development were those with small
populations and received less than 25,000 guest nights. The
development of new attractions at all levels suggests vibrancy in
tourism development, a point that the 2001 study highlighted
where developments had taken place in all areas. In terms of the
types of new developments, the list of new attractions, facilities and
services on offer is considerable and far to extensive to include, but
incorporates a large proportion of new trails, tours, guided walks
and outdoor adventure activities, with a smaller amount of development to create or upgrade cafes, wineries, museums and
retailing. It is striking that so many of the new developments relate
to sporting and adventure type activities in the outdoor environment (see Bentley & Page, 2001), all of which utilise environmental
resources and all of which have the potential to create or exacerbate
adverse impacts. As such, the role of the RMA in controlling the
effects of tourism development is clear in a climate where growth
in individual adventure tourism enterprises and outdoor pursuits is
occurring.
Some 44.2% of respondents considered their council area to be
under pressure from increased tourism and Table 5 identifies the
major pressures highlighted by respondents. Three broad categories of responses are distinguishable through examination of
a subsequent open question on what pressures existed in localities.
First, specific locations were identified as likely to experience
increased visitor numbers and associated impacts, e.g. West Coast
Beaches, Waitakere Ranges, Whanganui River, Ruapehu, Catlins and
Karangahake Gorge. Second, the concerns arising from increased
visitor numbers were identified including, demand for infrastructure, construction of tourist-related ventures, dealing with
municipal waste, water demand and waste water disposal,
increased freedom camping and effects on wildlife and natural
areas, housing affordability, second homes and subsequent loss of
community when homes are vacant, increase in tourist arrivals (e.g.
Table 5
Pressures created by tourism.
Tourism pressures
Number of responses
Accommodating more visitors
Demands on local services
Effects on wildlife
Waste volumes
Demands on water
Anti-social behaviour/community spirit
Housing affordability for local residents
Costs of stopping inappropriate development
Need to build more accommodation
Increased freedom camping
Lack of workforce in peak season
Coastal subdivision
Ensuring development does not spoil environment
5
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
airport expansion and acceptance of large cruise ships), and environmental costs of tourism have to be carried by small councils
with low taxation bases. Third, and somewhat in contrast to the
latter responses, a grouping of respondents though smaller than
the latter, want to grow tourism and maximise the benefits,
through creating infrastructure, building more accommodation and
increasing the workforce.
Fairly obviously, the survey identified that respondents in areas
with the largest number of guest nights (over 100,000 in peak
month 2007) were more likely to report that their area was under
pressure from tourism, and correspondingly those with the
smallest number of nights (less than 10,000) were the least likely to
be under pressure. The areas under pressure tend to include those
reliant on the natural environment, cities, areas on main tourist
routes and National Parks. Those not under pressure include those
wishing to develop tourism currently with low visitor numbers and
those off the beaten track. Interestingly, more councils on the South
Island perceived their areas to be under pressure (73%) compared
with (29%) on the North Island. Explanations for the perceived
higher pressure on the South Island include its major attraction
based on natural scenic qualities, which are well-developed
tourism icons in overseas promotions, alongside often heavy
concentrations of packaged tourism and adventure tourism utilising the physical and natural environment.
5.7. Tourism and the RMA
A key focus of this paper is focusing on the relationship between
sustainable tourism planning and the RMA. Under this Act,
consents are issued by both the regional and local councils
depending on the scope of the consent sought. Consents would be
required for all the developments mentioned in the previous
section. However, ascertaining accurate data on tourism-related
RCAs is highly problematic. While many respondents were able to
give precise numbers in relation to RCAs and refusals, a significant
number were not able to provide the data (13 respondents). The
main reason given for this is that tourism is not always isolated as
a key variable in the database recording process for resource
consents applications. Some developments are not primarily
designed for tourism purposes but may produce a tourism spin-off,
e.g. development of a winery. In other cases, databases are not set
up to be readily searched, data is not inputted into system as
‘tourism’, but as ‘commercial activity’ and in several cases, the
detail of activity or data is not even kept. This seems to indicate an
inherent problem in the data management of resource consent
applications with regard to tourism, and a technical inability to
retrieve useful information that can inform tourism planning at
local, regional and national strategic levels. Acknowledging the
limitations of the data, the following results give a broad indication
of the workings of the RMA process in relation to tourism development within local councils.
Twenty-four respondents (56%) had dealt with RCAs since 2000.
The highest number of applications dealt with by one authority was
40. Ten authorities had dealt with between 1 and 10 applications,
six between 11 and 20 applications, five between 21 and 30
applications, and three had dealt with 31 or more applications.
Overall, 395 RCAs were reported in the survey since 2000 relating
to tourism projects. While the largest number of applications were
dealt with by District Councils, (210 RCAs), 50% of the City Councils
accounted for 37% of the RCAs, indicating a substantial number of
applications within a small number of urban areas. Some 76% of
RCAs submitted were made to councils with a tourism policy,
which is an encouraging result suggesting that councils receiving
RCAs related to tourism might have a strategic vision of how
tourism should develop in their locality. Importantly, most of the
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
councils receiving large numbers of RCAs did have a policy,
although 2 receiving more than 25 applications did not. Further,
24% of RCAs were submitted to councils without a tourism policy.
There is no particular pattern of number of RCAs received and the
visitor numbers in council areas, with the largest numbers of
applications (8 councils with over 25 applications) in a variety of
rural and urban environments, representing those areas already
important tourist hubs (3 of the 8) and those encouraging the
development of a tourism economy (5 of the 8). Three districts
received no applications, all of which are insignificant tourism
areas: two not on tourist routes and one within a provincial city
environment.
One might expect a relationship between those councils
reporting a large number of RCAs and those reporting that they
perceived their area to be under pressure from tourism but this is
not always the case. Of the 8 councils reporting 25 or more applications, 5 stated that their area was not under pressure from
increasing tourism. In fact of the 19 councils that reported their area
to be under pressure, 9 were not able to extract numbers relating to
tourism, one had received no RCAs, and a further four councils
received fewer than 10 RCAs, suggesting that it is not necessarily
new developments that are creating tourism pressures. Indeed, one
might say that applications made under the RMA are perhaps less
problematic than existing developments that already generate
significant demand.
It appears that very few applications are refused, with only eight
identified in the survey since 2000. Reasons for refusal include noncompliance with a local plan, impact on environment, objections
from neighbours (often about noise), and other cultural and
amenity issues. However, as identified by a number of respondents,
planning authorities try to work with developers to produce an
appropriate application that meets the criteria of the local plan, the
RMA and addresses the range of environmental and cultural
sensitivities of the locality: ‘‘any difficulties regarding lack of information are overcome by working with applicants’’.
Difficulties experienced with tourism development planning
appear to be no different to those associated with any other kind of
planning application made under the RMA. The two major challenges as identified in the survey are part of the same essential
problem, that is, poor understanding of what is required in the
application. Eight respondents (24% of those that had experienced
difficulties with applications) stated that applications are often
presented with incomplete information and a further eight
respondents (24%) identified lack of understanding of the RMA
process to be a reason why problems are experienced in the
application procedure. However, as one respondent commented,
early contact with the council is important for the process to run
smoothly for the applicant: ‘‘it is not as bad as they initially think’’.
Similarly, a further difficulty in applications is a lack of consideration of impacts of developments (18%). However, 21% of those that
had dealt with RMA applications had not experienced any difficulties. As one respondent commented, ‘‘the RMA is there to protect
the environment if a tourist developer follows carefully with a planning/RMA consultant.then things appear to go relatively smoothly.
Communication between all parties is key’’.
In terms of the relationship between tourism development,
sustainability and the RMA, as argued by one respondent: ‘‘at the
moment the RMA deals with the sustainability of tourism on a caseby-case basis, however, at a strategic level the sustainability of tourism
is not grappled with’’. It is also apparent that the RMA does not
necessarily assure a sustainable approach to tourism planning
outside of the particular development under consideration. For
example, one respondent noted that: ‘‘associated with tourism
resulting from [the RMA] is pressure for overseas purchase of property
– this has contributed to significant increases in land/house prices’’.
875
While it is unclear to what extent planning officers work with
developers to ensure resource consents are granted, the general
premise that there are few outright refusals begs the question as to
whether the RMA process is rigorous in controlling the negative
impacts of tourism in areas under pressure from increased visitor
numbers. One respondent commented that ‘‘the RMA is not
a detractor to tourism development’’, which may or may not be
a good thing.
6. Implications
It is clear from the survey findings that the dual role of many
councils in performing a regulatory planning function and
promoting tourism raises issues about potential conflicts of interest
in applying the RMA while considering the economic development
of a locale. This debate is an old one – environment vs economics –
but in a sustainable development context the need to conserve
environmental resources to ensure future economic stability is
mandatory. This is particularly so given the Tourism Strategy’s
recognition of sustainability and the need to protect the environment to retain New Zealand’s ‘green and clean’ image: ‘‘the best kind
of tourism for New Zealand is sustainable tourism, that is, tourism that
delivers maximum value – economic, social, cultural, and environmental – with as few unwanted effects as possible’’ (NZTS 2015:14).
Since 2001, it is clear from observations of local government that
local councils have engaged more actively with the tourism sector
through development of tourism plans and policies. The turn in
policy developments at a national level reflects Page and Thorn’s
(1997, 2002) arguments that destination marketing and management practices should be much more clearly integrated, and that
a move away from the traditional growth perspective without
thought about the impacts within the country is a necessary
prerequisite to achieving a more joined up approach with the RMA.
The drive towards sustainable development as a national policy
direction is reflected in the National Tourism Strategies, through
increasing awareness of tourism within councils and to address
impacts through strategy preparation.
Yet for local authorities with limited resources, especially those
with a small population base and limited ability to raise revenue
through rates, providing infrastructure, promoting tourism growth
and managing impacts is a financial burden on tight budgets: this
emerges as a clear theme in the survey. New legislation currently
under consideration to minimise waste provides a refund to
councils based on permanent population but would not cover the
transient but often substantial visiting population. This is one
example of where finding ways to compensate councils and ratepayers for the use of local services is clearly a challenge and for
many councils in New Zealand and, indeed, world-wide, juggling
the economic costs and benefits of tourism and justifying the
outcomes to ratepayers remains problematic. Resources from
central government to develop and improve water and sewerage
infrastructure are perceived as inadequate, even though some
funding has been available through the Ministry of Tourism’s
Tourism Demand Subsidy Scheme.
This study shows that local authorities clearly understand the
role of the RMA with regard to tourism, focusing on the effects of
tourism activity within their area. However, looking at the bigger
picture, one of the criticisms of the RMA is that because of the caseby-case nature of the process, it is difficult for planning authorities
to consider cumulative effects of tourism development or to
consider tourism impacts in an integrated way, an inherent
problem in impact research (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). As such,
while the intentions of the RMA in preventing undesirable developments are laudable, the cumulative effects of a number of
seemingly innocent, less damaging developments might be equally
876
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
detrimental. Only one respondent specifically drew attention to
this issue, but that does not detract from the importance of the
point – indeed it might be questioned whether planning officers are
sufficiently aware of the dangers posed by this breach within the
RMA framework. Similarly, the focus of the RMA on effects of
activities, while well intentioned, could result in significant
economic sectors, like tourism, not being adequately and proactively planned for. Somewhat worryingly, this might be reflected in
the lack of response from Regional Councils, who do not appear to
take tourism as a specific concern under their remit, although are
clearly concerned by the effects of tourism such as waste.
The inherent difficulties of extracting tourism-related projects
from RMA databases held by local authorities appears to be an issue
in understanding the implications of the RMA for tourism and the
extent to which projects are acceptable in the local planning
decision-making process. Quite clearly this reflects inadequacies
within data management and retrieval, but also indicates
a systemic challenge for the core workings of the RMA, which by its
nature is not concerned with specific industry sectors but with the
effects of activities. While the key focus on natural resources
provides a valuable framework for the development of appropriate
policy and decision-making frameworks, the ability to understand
the scope and scale of tourism-related developments is essential
particularly given the ambitions of the national tourism strategy.
Worthy of note is that of the 13 councils that were unable to
retrieve tourism-related data due to technical problems of
searching were: four of the eight districts on the North Island
stating that their areas were under pressure from increasing
tourism; further, two of New Zealand’s very significant tourist
locations; and, further again, three other well-known tourist areas.
These omissions from knowledge at a planning level indicate the
potential to not fully understand the rate of tourism growth from
a supply perspective and the cumulative effects of tourism development linked with local aspirations within the confines of LTCCPs.
7. Conclusions
The main aim of this study was to explore the continuing
involvement of local and regional government in tourism planning
and the development of sustainable tourism approaches given the
framework of sustainability in New Zealand government strategy.
Further to the investigations of Page and Thorn (1997, 2002), this
study recognises a more firm course being steered for New Zealand
tourism through a national tourism strategy, which clearly distinguishes sustainability as the main thrust. In addition, reform to the
Local Government Act 1974 has given an impetus to communityderived planning outcomes through LTCCPs, with the role of
tourism in economic development established and recognised in
statutory plans. Sustainability now underpins the policy framework
for tourism in New Zealand, and the landmark steps taken to
develop and review national aspirations for tourism development
represent a step forward in establishing a clear remit for local
government in planning for tourism. The extent to which this is
rhetoric rather than reality is questionable, given the somewhat
mixed results in the survey of local government reported in this
paper. Quite clearly, a range of pressures continue to affect local
areas, and the challenges that face many local councils in trying to
manage the effects of tourism on environmental resources are as
pressing as ever. The LTCCP enables councils to evolve futures that
befit environmental resource opportunities and constraints,
community aspirations and local budgets. While tourism is mainly
a private sector industry in New Zealand, the public sector adopts
a dual role as the gatekeeper of tourism developments through
planning control, while promoting economic development opportunities through tourism. As such, while councils have become the
arbiters of sustainable tourism through their role in implementing
the RMA, the appeal of developing the local economy places them
in a dichotomous position.
While much of this discussion sounds positive, there is still
a major gap between strategy and implementation in the evolution
towards New Zealand as a sustainable destination. While sustainability is now one of the cornerstones of New Zealand tourism
strategy, much of this lies at a national, strategic level and remains
as a philosophical stance. Yet, the perception of New Zealand as at
the forefront of sustainable policy developments is not matched in
reality, with an absence of any truly national sustainable business
accreditation scheme (at the time of writing) to highlight its
national commitment to sustainable tourism and a way to manage
the continuity of the effects of tourism operations once past the
initial development control stage. Internationally, the image of New
Zealand relies heavily on its natural environment as a tourist
attraction, and is used consistently in the marketing of the country,
inherent in the 100% Pure campaign. However, evidence suggests
that problems created by tourism pressures do exist and some of
these are difficult to deal with given the limited budgets of local
government. Pressure at key tourist hotspots and with certain
tourism-related activities is recognised, and with the continuing
growth in tourist numbers forecasted, the effects of tourism have
the potential to change the nature of the tourist experience and the
very foundations on which New Zealand tourism is built. The
existing problems of geographic concentration of tourism activity
will only worsen, exacerbating the pressures on local authorities.
At this juncture, a policy at a national level that assists local
areas in dealing with visitor volumes and the distribution of visitors in a more systematic manner would enable a more proactive
public sector approach to tourism planning. Steps towards
understanding the dynamics of tourism in New Zealand have been
made by the Ministry of Tourism in establishing a Tourism Flows
Model although the data used to generate this model remains at
the level of RTOs. A national tourism plan could set out a rationale
for the way in which tourism should develop, setting targets for
environmental protection and enhancement through tourism
activity (Page & Thorn, 2002). Further steps would help destinations to ensure the RMA achieves the goals and principles
enshrined in the original legislation. Without a more concerted
attempt to challenge pro-development policy, New Zealand is
likely to lose pace in terms of competitive advantage as a clean,
green and sustainable tourism destination. As Edgell, Allen, Smith,
and Swanson (2008: 335) argue, ‘‘those destinations, localities and
nations that prepare good policies and implement detailed strategic plans will reap the benefits for sustaining their tourism
products in the future’’, which is a cornerstone of New Zealand
tourism strategy.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the valued input of Kaye
Thorn, Massey University Albany to this research who developed
the questionnaire survey for the previous two studies and also
provided permission to use the survey instrument for this study.
References
Becken, S., & Patterson, M. (2006). Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions
from tourism as a key step towards achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 323–338.
Becken, S., & Simmons, D. G. (2002). Understanding energy consumption patterns of
tourist attractions and activities in New Zealand. Tourism Management, 23(4),
343–354.
Bentley, T., & Page, S. J. (2001). Scoping the extent of tourist accidents in New
Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 705–726.
J. Connell et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 867–877
Booth, K. L., & Cullen, R. (2001). Managing recreation and tourism in New Zealand
mountains. Mountain Research and Development, 21(4), 331–334.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2000). Collaboration and partnerships in tourism
planning. In B. Bramwell, & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.
Cessford, G. R., & Dingwall, P. R. (1999). An approach to assessing the environmental
impacts of tourism. Wellington: Department of Conservation.
Constantine, R. (1999)Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Science for
conservation, Vol. 106. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism planning and policy. Brisbane: John Wiley.
Dredge, D., & Moore, S. (1992). A methodology for the integration of tourism in
town planning. Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(1), 8–21.
Edgell, D. L., Allen, M. D., Smith, G., & Swanson, J. R. (2008). Tourism policy and
planning: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning. London: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2007a). Tourism planning. Policies, processes and relationships (2nd ed.).
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2007b). Biosecurity and ecotourism. In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical issues in
ecotourism (pp. 102–116). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. J. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment,
space and place. London: Routledge.
Holden, A. (2008). Tourism and environment (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: an integrated and sustainable development
approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Local Government New Zealand. (2003). Postcards from home. The local government
tourism strategy. May 2003. Wellington: LGNZ.
Local Government New Zealand. (2004). Tourism and the RMA good practice guide.
Prepared by Becca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd and Tourism Resource Consultants Ltd.. Wellington: LGNZ
Lusseau, D., & Higham, J. E. S. (2004). Managing the impacts of dolphin-based
tourism through the definition of critical habitats: the case of bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in doubtful sound, New Zealand. Tourism Management,
25(6), 657–667.
McClung, M. R., Seddon, P. J., Massaro, M., & Setiawan, A. N. (2004). Nature-based
tourism impacts on yellow-eared penguins Megadyptes antipodes: does
unregulated visitor access affect fledgling weight and juvenile survivial?
Biological Conservation, 119(2), 279–285.
Memon, A., Shone, M., & Simmons, D. (2005). Strategic planning for tourism
development in New Zealand. In D. G. Simmons, & J. R. Fairweather (Eds.),
Understanding the tourism host-guest encounter in New Zealand: Foundations
for adaptive planning and management (pp. 217–244). Christchurch: EOS
Ecology.
Milne, S., Bremner, H., & Delpero, M. (2006). Ski areas and sustainable community
development: ‘‘global-local’’ tensions at Mt. Ruapehu, New Zealand. In T. Clark,
A. Gill, & R. Hartmann (Eds.), Mountain resort planning and development in an era
of globalization (pp. 78–90). New York: Cognizant.
Ministry for the Environment. (2001). Valuing New Zealand’s clean green image.
Wellington: MfE.
Ministry for the Environment. (2008). State of the environment 2007. Wellington:
MfE.
877
Ministry of Tourism. (2007). New Zealand tourism strategy 2015. Wellington:
Ministry of Tourism.
New Zealand Herald (2008) Tourist threat worries air NZ. 3rd April 2008. Available
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id¼7&objectid¼10501808.
Accessed 01.05.08.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Environmental
performance reviews: New Zealand. Paris: OECD.
Page, S. J., & Connell, J. (Eds.). (2008). Sustainable tourism (critical concepts in the
social sciences). London: Routledge.
Page, S. J., & Hall, C. M. (1999). New Zealand country report. International Tourism
Reports, 4, 47–76.
Page, S. J., & Thorn, K. (1997). Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand:
public sector planning responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 59–77.
Page, S. J., & Thorn, K. (2002). Towards sustainable tourism development and
planning in New Zealand: the public sector response revisited. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 222–238.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (1997). Management of the
environmental effects associated with the tourism sector. Available from.
Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. http://www.
pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/0_908804_74_1.shtml.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (1998). Towards sustainable
development. The role of the Resource Management Act 1991. PCE Environmental
Management Review No.1.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE). (2004). See change:
Learning and education for sustainability. Wellington: PCE.
Paterson, M., & McDonald, G. (2004). How clean and green is New Zealand tourism?
Palmerston North: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Redclift, M. (Ed.). (2005). Sustainability (critical concepts in the social sciences).
London: Routledge.
Richter, C. F., Dawson, S. M., & Slooten, E. (2003). Sperm whale watching off
Kaikoura, New Zealand: effects of current activities on surfacing and vocalisation patterns. Science for Conservation, 129.
Statistics New Zealand. (2006). New Zealand tourism satellite account 2006.
Statistics New Zealand. (2008a). New Zealand population clock. Available from.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/default.htm. Accessed 01.05.08.
Statistics New Zealand. (2008b). Commercial accommodation. Available from. http://
www.stats.govt.nz/datasets/tourism/commercial-accommodation.htm. Accessed
01.05.08.
Stephenson, G. (1999). Vehicle impacts on the biota of sandy beaches and coastal
dunes. A review from a New Zealand perspective. Science for Conservation, 121.
Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts and opportunities.
Harlow: Pearson.
Ward, J., & Beanland, R. A. (1995). Biophysical impacts of tourism. Information Paper
no. 56. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Ward, J., Hughey, K., & Urlich, S. (2002). A framework for managing the biophysical
effects of tourism on the natural environment in New Zealand. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 239–259.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wray, K., Harbrow, M., & Kazmierow, B. (2005). Planning for visitor management at
Mason Bay (Rakiura National Park, Stewart Island). DOC Research and Development Series, 222.